No conversation about the future is complete without a discussion of artificial intelligence (AI). There are quite a few misconceptions about what AI actually is and everyone has a slightly different way of approaching it. Usually opinions are at one extreme or the other; either gloatingly dismissive or obsessively paranoid. The rational response probably lies somewhere in between.

Here’s a more rational approach.

AI is not a living thing and it never will be. It’s exactly what the name implies; a simulation of intelligence that can give the illusion of being a sentient being. But no matter what, anything and everything it does is a result of complex programming. But when it gives the illusion of being a living thing and it does it so convincingly, what kinds of effects will that have on people?

There’s a concept in robotics (and it applies to other simulations as well, such as computer generated imagery – abbreviated as CGI – in films) called the “uncanny valley.”  The idea of the uncanny valley, a concept put forward by roboticist Masahiro Mori in 1970, posits that our brains can recognize when something is “off” in a fellow human. If someone is lying to you, you may believe them, but if they have a subtle “tell” your brain can pick that up and process it without you fully realizing it. Presumably, you are used to truthfulness in your interactions with others. Even the subtlest lie can give a sensation of unease.

As simulations both virtual (CG) and physical (robotics) continue to advance and become more realistic, our brains accept what we’re seeing as obviously fake. But when say, a CG human in a movie is 99.9% realistic, the upward curve collapses into that uncanny valley. The uncanny valley is the point where every single tiny little thing that’s “off” jumps out at us. Simply put, a simulation of life, like a robot, will continue to become realistic and relatable until it is so close to being a hundred percent indistunguishble from the real thing that the tiniest details jump out at you, often causing discomfort. You can watch a CG animation like a Pixar movie with traditionally exaggerated cartoonish humans and not feel creeped out. Your brain doesn’t pick up the flaws of the blue cat people in Avatar because you know that blue cat people aren’t real and your brain isn’t wired to recognize them. But when you watch something attempting photorealism, your alarms go off. You may not be able to say why (although it’s usually described as soulless dead eyes).

Creepy Stoner Child never really caught on as a Christmas tradition.

Let’s say that AI does become self-aware and reaches the theoretical point that is called the singularity (more on that in the next part). Let’s say that a machine becomes self-aware; it knows it’s a machine, but that can’t change anything as far as its own existential problems. It’s still just a machine. If it looks like a trashcan, it’ll be easier to accept. But if it looks like a regular person, you might have trouble rationalizing to yourself, this is a walking iPod. Animators know this trick; that’s why everything from Disney princesses to Avatar cat people to Wall-E have massive eyes. It instantly makes the character empathetic (and sells tons of toys). Even cars have “faces.” It’s why in PG action films, bad guys are usually masked. It’s easier to accept that the heroes are killing hundreds of other humans if we can’t see the faces they’re snuffing the life from.

I’ve talked to people who don’t care about any of this at all. An AI-powered robot is just a glorified computer. Therefore, any concerns are moot and why should we care? I agree with this, but I would disagree that there shouldn’t any concern at all. Any unchecked advancement in a field of science will lead to trouble.

They always say that hindsight is 20/20. This usually seems to apply to the speculation that is traditionally presented in the science fiction genre. To some degree, at least. There’s so much being explored in the realm of futuristic fiction that it’s difficult to see what’s going to stick until it actually happens. Jules Verne’s submarine was far-fetched at the time, but a few decades later, U-boats were crucial aspects of modern warfare. At the same time, other topics in science fiction – self-aware artificially intelligent machines in the work of Isaac Asimov and space colonization in that of Arthur C. Clarke for instance – have remained in a firmer speculative category.

Until now. For a good portion of the 20th century, this kind of space-age futuristic advancement was dependent on government programs. Indeed, much of the innovation that we’ve seen has come about as a result of arms-racing, or the PR arm-wrestle that was the Space Race. Once there was no need for America to beat the USSR in getting to the Moon first, space travel became less of a government interest, leading NASA into a state of decay and relegating astronauts to low Earth orbit research missions. This following statement is both fascinating and frustrating: we went to the moon and came back safely before we had internet and cell phones. And we haven’t been back since.

What happened?

Innovative events like the Moon landing came from a need to reassure the people of America – at a time when political propaganda was widely accepted and less contested – that we were the best and we could beat anyone. Once we did, there was no reason to keep going further. The goal had been set and met. This is the same thing that happens when someone starts a company with the attitude of “I’ll sell it in two years for a gazillion dollars.” Those companies don’t generally fare quite so well as the ones that are started from the attitude of “let’s make a positive impact and, yeah, we’ll be sure to make some money on the way, too.”

Great innovation and true ground-breaking discovery comes from a maverick attitude that is quite prevalent in the startup world. You’ve got an industry that is home to a few self-made billionaires (the kind who drop out of Ivy League schools to start Facebook or Microsoft) who generally have an anti-authoritarian attitude (remember, it takes a special kind of insanity to be this different) but often a compassionate side for humanity as a whole.

Technological leaps aren’t as easy as banging out a few prototypes and Kickstarting the rest. Thomas Edison famously went through 10,000 lightbulbs before he found the most viable solution. Your iPhone is a very affordable luxury; but it took millions of dollars to reach your pocket. And unless you are a big company that can dump tons of cash into what will likely end up being skunkworks, there’s not a lot of immediate incentive to push things beyond the current status quo. This is where renegade billionaires come into play. Self-made entrepreneurs like Richard Branson or Elon Musk or Bill Gates don’t necessarily need to see a return on every single thing (although it’s still good business to do so) right away. But because these are all people who see beyond the short-term advantages (immediate profits, for one) they can give complex ideas the time necessary to come to full fruition. They have the resources and patience to nurse something until it can spread its own wings. As an example, Musk’s Tesla Motors reported its first profitable quarter in 2013 – ten years after opening up shop. Patience pays off, especially when you can afford it. On top of that, they are interested in making the world a better place after they’ve passed on. Pushing for huge industry changes like electric over gasoline vehicles reflect that.

That’s why we are seeing a second renaissance in complicated and expensive industries like spaceflight, for instance. Right now guys like Elon Musk are saying what NASA was saying when I was a kid; that we’ll have someone on Mars in the next 15 years or so. Except this time, I believe the person saying it. I have no doubt that humans will have landed on Mars by 2020. NASA has been limping along as an underfunded government arm for several decades now. With no uber-patriotic cause needed to unite America the drive isn’t there at a government level. But SpaceX and Virgin Galactic don’t need to ask for the permission of politicians to spend taxpayer’s money on “useless” science playtime.

The kinds of innovations that are being made now aren’t feats that can be accomplished in a garage. While those will always be around, you can’t get to space with spare car parts and popsicle sticks. Just like the Age of Discovery five centuries ago, the Age of Space will be funded by private corporations. And just like those in the Age of Discovery realized, the feasibility of a round trip means that any progress will be naturally impeded by the effort and time wasted on returning. Just as New World colonization was a one-way ticket, so too will be missions to far-off places like Mars.

Here at Wovax we get really excited about tech in general and where its innovations are taking the world. This week though, we’re going to revisit some of our own territory – but it is still exciting and shows what’s coming. Or rather, what’s already arrived and how it will keep growing.

Let’s look at how mobile usage has grown recently.

Something we like to revisit from time to time is growth in the area of mobile usage. Apple closed out 2014 with a massively record-making $18 billion quarter (in profit) thanks to last fall’s iPhones. Considering they barely sold more iPhones than Android phones than were sold in the same time frame, that’s a lot of devices for both sides of the mobile camp. It’s not too surprising, given that 80% of internet users own smartphones.

Currently, there are 1.75 billion smartphones being used worldwide, and that’s at the current rate of growth. As internet continues to become less of a first-world luxury and more of a standard commodity similar to a car or lightbulb, those numbers will continue to explode.

Each piece of the mobile web pie is growing every year, and one of the pieces that is especially important to the business sector is online shopping. According to IBM, online sales went up nearly 14% during the 2014 holiday season as compared to the previous year. This makes sense as holidays are a busy time for everyone and people will be on the go more than usual (which, nowadays, is quite often). People will be traveling and out of town and when travel efficiency is a concern, mobile devices generally win out; even over a laptop.

Pulling back from November/December to get the full 2014 perspective, mobile app usage grew by 76% in 2014 with lifestyle and shopping apps leading the way at a whopping 174% growth. For years now, studies have been predicting that 2015 will be a crucial mark in the point where mobile web rules internet traffic. As we can see by current studies and the spiking growth of app-based mobile traffic and shopping, we can see that this is absolutely the case.

As we’ve been growing our client base, we have discovered that many businesses and organizations – from restaurants to blogs to school districts to real estate – have been quickly realizing the obvious benefits in staking out a mobile presence. The efficiency and reach of a mobile app is a main attractor. They all have specific needs and are able to use the flexibility that an app provides in meeting those needs. For example, a school will generally place high priority on being able to reach parents, teachers, and students for announcements or more serious matters like an emergency. Real estate is a no-brainer as it allows people to peruse listings on the go; while they house-shop, for instance.

Running a website represents a large part of many livelihoods. With the numbers and data from the last half-decade accurately reflecting precisely what is happening now and where the traffic is coming from, it would be stupid to delay a mobile app presence any longer.

Probably not this stupid, but close.

Science fiction is one of the most important and interesting genres of storytelling that we have. Its strength lies in the ability to be a little more on-the-nose than normal and make its own obviousness easier to swallow by transposing the story to a future world that somewhat resembles our own. This isn’t us, but it could be. This isn’t actually how oppressive our world is right now – or is it? We’re not actually living in a simulation – or are we? A common theme found in sci-fi is the idea that people are nothing more than numbers in a giant system that lets them exist so that it can exploit them. Barcodes to be scanned, numbers to be punched.

Science fiction.

One very sci-fi sounding idea that already exists is the idea of digital identity. Your digital identity can be defined as who you are online. Everything posted about you, both by yourself and by others, whether it’s true or not. Every brand, movie, band, TV show, restaurant, or sports team page that you like on Facebook or follow on Twitter.  If someone (such a potential employer) Googles you, what will they find? Whatever they find is your digital identity. It’s your reputation and interests made tangible. But if you’re plugged into the internet at all, it can be hard to control.

The current generation (mine) is growing up with a unique dilemma that no one else has yet faced. Social interactions have been generally limited to direct in-person communication and if something was written down it was either intended to be read by only one or two other people or else it was supposed to be seen by many people. There wasn’t a lot of in-between on that. Nowadays, it’s easy to let the line blur between private and public. When you post on your buddy’s Facebook wall that you wanna hang out, you’re essentially standing in a room full of everyone you’ve ever met and shouting across everyone else to your friend. Not only that, but you know all the dumb little conversations your average day has? If you’re typing it, it’s stored away somewhere, theoretically forever. It’s a weird way to communicate.

“You wanna hang out later?”

This leads to interesting side effects. Assuming you behave in mostly the same way online that you do off, it’s remarkably easy for third parties to figure out who you are. Not in a “we know your name and where you live” kind of way but more of a “we know what you like to eat for lunch and what you’re going to buy next and who you have a crush on.” This isn’t as sinister as it sounds; for the most part, they just want you to give them your money. And honestly, if I’m going to look at ads, I’d rather see ads for things I might actually want to buy.

The inconvenient and more invasive side of this has recently come into play with the way many potential employers have treated social media. Recently, employers started demanding that job candidates hand over login credentials to their Facebook accounts as part of the interview process. While this was swiftly made illegal in many states, it doesn’t stop them from looking at what is publicly accessible. And while there’s nothing wrong with the HR department taking a look at your Twitter, having a social media presence is so normal these days that not having one is also considered – perhaps unfairly – a red flag by many. The assumption is that people who choose not to share their lives on Facebook or Twitter are hiding something. This will likely be a passing fad as older generation bosses who aren’t quite sure how to handle new digital trends are replaced by millennials. But for now, digital identities are taking root and becoming akin to something like a credit score; you need to have it to be allowed to do certain things, but it should also be managed wisely.